What about the Old "Finger In The Jacket" Trick?

This is a discussion on What about the Old "Finger In The Jacket" Trick? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I am not sure if this one has been covered in the past (I am sure it has) but I have wondered on several occasions: ...

What about the Old "Finger In The Jacket" Trick?

I am not sure if this one has been covered in the past (I am sure it has) but I have wondered on several occasions: What if someone tries to rob you with the "Finger In The Jacket" trick? Would you be justified to use force without actually seeing the weapon?

How would you know it was a finger though, if it was in the jacket? I think this covers a "reasonable expectation" of deadly force. For all you know, there's a GUN pointed at you.

Personally, I'm not gonna stop and ask "is that a finger in your jacket, or are you just happy to see me?" when it's pointed at me. If the BG's acting like it's a gun, then you know what? *I'm* gonna act like it's a gun, too. I'd rather assume it's a loaded weapon when it's a finger, than assume it's a finger and get shot or killed.

The legal standard for self defense is what you reasonably believed at the time. If it turns out later that it was just a finger, or his gun was an airsoft, etc., that doesn't matter as long as your belief that it was a real weapon was reasonable.

... "Finger In The Jacket" trick? Would you be justified to use force without actually seeing the weapon?

Actual physical force being used.

A credible threat of pain of death is being made.

All circumstances point to my life being negotiated at the point of a deadly weapon.

And, I'm supposed to put on the brakes until I actually see the tool (by which I mean the weapon, not the "tool" using it; no offense to the tool)? I don't think so.

A criminal executing actual deadly threats to life that end up jailed, hospitalized or on a slab it's not our doing. It's merely a vocational hazard of the idiot attempting it.

Originally Posted by Blackeagle

The legal standard for self defense is what you reasonably believed at the time. If it turns out later that it was just a finger, or his gun was an airsoft, etc., that doesn't matter as long as your belief that it was a real weapon was reasonable.

Exactly. In Oregon, the "reasonable man" standard is the basic yardstick, as well.

The legal standard for self defense is what you reasonably believed at the time. If it turns out later that it was just a finger, or his gun was an airsoft, etc., that doesn't matter as long as your belief that it was a real weapon was reasonable.

This goes to what you know and what you believe.

You know you are the victim of a violent felony and have the belief that the suspect has a deadly weapon.

In short, the perpetrator has the means and the motive and appears to have the ability. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck you are pretty safe in presuming it's a duck until proven otherwise.

This is NOT legal advice and please don't take it as such. It is just a statement of someone that has made a few observations in his life. YMMV.

You know you are the victim of a violent felony and have the belief that the suspect has a deadly weapon.

In short, the perpetrator has the means and the motive and appears to have the ability. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck you are pretty safe in presuming it's a duck until proven otherwise.

This is NOT legal advice and please don't take it as such. It is just a statement of someone that has made a few observations in his life. YMMV.

The problem I see with it is: If he/she ends up shot (Or worse) and doesn't turn out a gun or something you could have believed was a gun......then where are you? It tosses a crap load of legal burdon your way

Actually the determining factor would be state law. Some states, usually the pro-gun/ castle doctrine ones, would consider this an actual assault in which deadly force was justified. Others (NY, NJ, Cal...) Would probably consider it a prank and go after the victim. Look what they did to Bernard Goetz, who actually was being assaulted.

The problem I see with it is: If he/she ends up shot (Or worse) and doesn't turn out a gun or something you could have believed was a gun......then where are you? It tosses a crap load of legal burdon your way

You're going to have "a crap of legal burden" even if he or she had a gun.

You will have to be able to articulate to a Jury, the Prosecuting Attorney, Grand Jury and Investigators why you did what you did.

Your other option, there are some more, is to hope he or she doesn't have a gun and give them what they want. The problem with that is, it places you at the mercy of the criminal and with the menatlity of the average criminal today changing for the worse in my expirience, it's not a chance I would want to take.

It seems to me that the younger generation as a whole, places less importance on life than the older generations. Maybe because we know it, life, really is a gift. I'm not in the mood to give up my "gift".

Actually the determining factor would be state law. Some states, usually the pro-gun/ castle doctrine ones, would consider this an actual assault in which deadly force was justified. Others (NY, NJ, Cal...) Would probably consider it a prank and go after the victim. Look what they did to Bernard Goetz, who actually was being assaulted.

What the jury convicted Goetz of was the illegal possession of a handgun. Check his criminal record if you don't believe me.

Make no mistake about it, after the self defense portion was over he, Goetz, attempted to commit murder. I can't remember which one of the pieces of puke he said it to, but he went up to one and said, "You don't look too bad. Here's another;" and proceeded to shoot the piece of puke again.

I supported Goetz right up until that point, but I do understand why he may have done what he did. It doesn't make it right, just that I understand. From what I've heard and read, there are similar dynamics in play in the case of the Pharmacist that shot a criminal attempting to rob his Pharmacy, in OK I believe.

As Mas likes to say: "There are no winners in a gunfight, only survivors."